Obviously this is going to be a key discussion this offseason. On The Athletic's podcast (Time's Ours), Nate Taylor said that he's heard that there are multiple teams out there who would give us a 1st round pick for Jones (assuming we tag and trade him), and possibly more than that.
So just to lay out a simplified version of the options:
Option 1:
Chris Jones (probably around $20m per year)
Option 2:
1st round draft pick (cheap for 4-5 years)
$20m worth of other players
For context on how much other players might cost based on recent free agents we've signed:
Clark - $21m
Mathieu - $14m
Hitchens - $9m
Schwartz - $8m
Okafor - $6m
Originally Posted by The Franchise:
Every player that signs a large contract is a risk.
Well obviously, but the risk of injury is far less with a QB than a DT. If your QB is breaking down due to physical punishment, it’s probably a failure of the entire organization. DTs will break down far earlier. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
For those who are strongly advocating for signing Jones, does our experience with Houston not terrify you? He had 22 sacks, got paid, then proceeded to be hurt every year and never topped 10 sacks again. Sub in Eric Berry if you want another example.
What about Jones makes you confident that he's not going to fall apart similarly? I get the "draft picks are lottery tickets" take, but I don't understand how signing a guy like Jones to a huge contract is any different. And the former option comes with a bag of money.
So do you never pay any of your defensive players?
Injuries happen. It’s all about how you structure the contracts.
Originally Posted by DaFace:
For those who are strongly advocating for signing Jones, does our experience with Houston not terrify you? He had 22 sacks, got paid, then proceeded to be hurt every year and never topped 10 sacks again. Sub in Eric Berry if you want another example.
What about Jones makes you confident that he's not going to fall apart similarly? I get the "draft picks are lottery tickets" take, but I don't understand how signing a guy like Jones to a huge contract is any different. And the former option comes with a bag of money.
Technically, signing Jones costs you both draft picks and money.
We are foregoing draft picks that we could acquire for Jones. Those picks will not belong to the Chiefs if we sign Jones.
So, by betting on Jones, we’re risking both the money he signs for AND the draft picks we could received in return for him. [Reply]
Originally Posted by wachashi:
You would rather have Chris Jones than Kelce, Hill, Hunt, Thornhill, and Hardman combined? Good Lord, that is crazy talk.
Originally Posted by smithandrew051:
Except elite QBs impact the game far more and take less physical punishment than a DT, which prolongs their careers.
Mahomes could lose some athleticism and still be an elite QB. We’ve seen guys like Brady and Brees stay effective for 15+ years.
DT’s are essentially in a car wreck every Sunday. Betting on a DT’s health is much riskier.
It is not like the Chiefs will be signing him to deal that will still be paying out when Jones is in the twilight of his career. He will barely be 30 when this one is up. The guy is in his prime years and is on a HOF trajectory so far. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Halfcan:
It is not like the Chiefs will be signing him to deal that will still be paying out when Jones is in the twilight of his career. He will barely be 30 when this one is up. The guy is in his prime years and is on a HOF trajectory so far.
I agree. My comment was in response to saying that signing Mahomes is a lottery ticket like signing Jones.
Yes, both are risks. But the risk is a lot higher with a DT. [Reply]
